I don't see why "not being boring for a couple of minutes" is a cardinal virtue but I guess it's just personal taste.

It is not a cardinal virtue or a rule, it simply don't happens in the absolute great ones. I was bored in parts the first time I watched 2001 or Irreversible, but later, when I got into the films, when I began to feel them, they did not bore me anymore, and it is now mostly mesmerizing to watch them.

There is a common ides of what is entertainment and what not. Most people would say that Star Wars is entertaining and 2001 is boring (but art), but for me 2001 is greast entertainment, sand the alst time I wathced the first Star Wars I was often bored. I understand what people mean when they speak about things being entertainment, but individually that might not correspondent with ones personal taste.

For the record, if you're watching a movie for the 10th time, the fact that you're not bored isn't very telling anymore. You're projecting a lot of stuff into what you're seeing. I'm talking about the first viewing only, maybe the second one too... In short, when you're still wondering what you're thinking about the movie.

If it was half as long, it wouldn't be "terrible, terrible." But being 2:41, it's pretty unbearable. A boring 161-minute film angers me more than a boring 61-minute film.

The atheism thing shouldn't bother you: You can think about it not as about religion, but about people having the right to practice their beliefs without government interference - it's a libertarian argument

Eh, true that there's more ways to look at it than strictly religion ... but regardless, I find the whole religious thing silly enough where i find it personally difficult to connect with how important faith is for the characters. That's not a flaw in the movie at all of course, just not something I necessarily care about.

Quote

didn't connect personally as much as others did with TAXI DRIVER- though it is very memorable - but I loved or liked very much RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, THE AVIATOR, MEAN STREETS, ALICE DOESN't LIVE HERE ANYMORE, THE COLOR OF MONEY, MEAN STREETS, and THE DEPARTED. (I even loved WHO's THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR until I saw MEAN STREETS, which is a far better version ofbthe same material.) I did not like NEW YORK, NEW YORK; THE KING OF COMEDY; or BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. And I hated SILENCE.

Hmm, odd. I thought I remember reading that you even hated raging bull, goodfellas, departed, etc.... fine I take that back!

Quote

anyway, rr, how can you give a 6/10 to a movie that in your own words is "so fucking boring" and "far too long"? That means you were not enjoying yourself for much of the time. If you are not enjoying yourself, the movie is no good. Period. I don't want to hear any shit about deference to Marty and artistry and all that crap. If a movie is not enjoyable to watch, then it is a failure. 6/10 is not a good rating, but a failure deserves lower than that. This piece of crap gets no higher than a 2/10 in my book

as a whole it is "so fucking boring", but I never mentioned that I was ripping my hair out frustrated at how boring it was. It's a very very long movie, but quite often it was able to regain my attention. There are sequences that I did enjoy watching. But when it was all over? Yeah, for sure, I would definitely classify it as boring overall - but not 2/10 boring. There's a lot in Silence to appreciate and be fascinated by as I outlined, and it's certainly not a movie that had any intent to be 'entertaining'.

That being said, Schindler's List isn't meant to be entertaining, but it certainly doesn't get boring. The lack of enjoyment is a big reason why Silence loses so many points in my book, but I can't just ignore the aspects I liked about it. I'd consider it much less a bad movie and much more just not my cup of tea. It's good enough for me to recognize that there are some people out there who must really love it. I didn't feel the movie was a waste of my time in the slightest bit, it's just something I likely won't be returning to again.

La La Land (2016) - 10/10Had to see it again. Now this is a movie that is 100% entertaining and enjoyable the whole way through. And beautiful to look at. Yea, its filled with flaws and cliches, but they're all handled so unashamedly that it doesn't matter. It's a movie that's so fun to watch and look at that only a true curmudgeon could go out of their way to nitpick. If Chazelle keeps it up, I expect he'll be the next modern director that has the general movie community appeal of PTA, Tarantino, Nolan, etc. Not that those guys should be respected or noted around these parts of town.

I was actually specifically thinking about that movie when I mentioned previously that "Entertaining" does not have to mean laughs, thrills, sex, funny lines, etc. Great artistry is entertaining. You can watch a great movie about a very serious topic, like SHOAH or SCHINDLER'S LIST, and you would not call it "entertaining" but you would say you enjoyed watching it. A well-made movie can be enjoyed even when its subject matter is tragic. Nobody would call those movies "entertaining," but you would not call it "boring" either. Without trying to get too semantic, bottom line is that if I am not happy watching the movie - if I wish I was anywhere else but in front of that damn screen - then the movie is a failure.

Normally i would have left halfway through. But I stayed in this case A) out of deference to Marty and B) cuz I knew this would be much-discussed, and I had to see it just to be involved in the discussion. I was miserable from beginning to end.

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

It's entertaining in the very first meaning of the word. Spielberg took care of that, and he was right. It's a great example of Hollywood successfully tackling a serious topic. You can put it on pretty much in any context and be hooked. The screenplay is built on this idea, and by nature, Spielberg's direction (mainly his ultra-rigorously motivated camera placement based on characters' emotions FIRST). But I rest my case on 2001 or Paris, Texas. Those films are more demanding and you need to be utterly receptive and willing to work with them instead of expecting them to work for you.

So my whole point is simply that the fact that an audience member (whether he is brilliant like many board members or just your regular Titoli) who doesn't always connect with a movie during the FIRST screening doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. Yes, it shows some kind of flaw, but it may (or may not) be an incredibly minor one. I'm mainly reacting to the whole "If I'm bored for 2 minutes then the filmmakers failed" consensus that I've been reading/hearing my whole life: it's just wrong.

Once again, I'm sure Silence is really boring, mainly because its topic isn't interesting to most people (including me) while the film was made for people who can connect with the premise.

It's entertaining in the very first meaning of the word. Spielberg took care of that, and he was right. It's a great example of Hollywood successfully tackling a serious topic. You can put it on pretty much in any context and be hooked. The screenplay is built on this idea, and by nature, Spielberg's direction (mainly his ultra-rigorously motivated camera placement based on characters' emotions FIRST). But I rest my case on 2001 or Paris, Texas. Those films are more demanding and you need to be utterly receptive and willing to work with them instead of expecting them to work for you.

So my whole point is simply that the fact that an audience member (whether he is brilliant like many board members or just your regular Titoli) who doesn't always connect with a movie during the FIRST screening doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. Yes, it shows some kind of flaw, but it may (or may not) be an incredibly minor one. I'm mainly reacting to the whole "If I'm bored for 2 minutes then the filmmakers failed" consensus that I've been reading/hearing my whole life: it's just wrong.

Once again, I'm sure Silence is really boring, mainly because its topic isn't interesting to most people (including me) while the film was made for people who can connect with the premise.

It's not about the subject matter, and it's not about being bored for two minutes. It's simply a terrible movie. Watch it and you will see what we mean, rather than defending a film you have not even seen

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

It's not about the subject matter, and it's not about being bored for two minutes. It's simply a terrible movie. Watch it and you will see what we mean, rather than defending a film you have not even seen

But people react differently to a film. I'm sure there will be others who enjoy the film. You can't expect that everybody views the film as you do.

7 Psychopaths (2012) 7/10. That's right, seven. There were only 3 in In Bruges, so this film must be WAY better. Actually, if I remember right, one of the psychos this time gets counted twice, but even so, this new one still has twice the psychos as the first. So it's gotta be twice the fun, right? I can't wait for Martin McDonagh to put 12 psychos in his next picture, the perfect end to his Psychopaths Trilogy. What a vision that man has!

Saw a remounting of Martin McDonagh's first play yesterday at BAM ("The Beauty Queen of Leenane") and that inspired me to go home and re-watch the blu of 7P. TBQoL only had one psychopath in it . . .

Looking forward to Martin's new film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017). Harrelson and Rockwell are back, but Frances McDormand is being added to the mix. I guess Martin is going for more of a Coens' vibe this time.

Ya measly skunk! A-campin’ on my trail and lettin’ me do the work an’ then shootin’ me in the back. IN THE BACK!

OUATITW is a good example of a film in which you may occasionally be bored for a few minutes here or there, but ultimately there is a payoff, and a great one. IMO, that does not apply with SILENCE. SILENCE is boring beginning to end.

« : January 16, 2017, 05:33:39 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

But I can expect that someone should see the movie before they defend or criticize it

1 - Expect what you want, I'll keep on criticizing and defending movies I'll never ever see 2 - I haven't had a single nice word about Silence yet. I've been quite harsh on the film since the first trailer.

"Flash" by Perfume (2016) - 10/10. The girls demonstrate that yes, kung-fu CAN be done in heels. And just when you thought things couldn't get any better: light sabers! https://www.youtube.com/user/Perfume New single "Tokyo Girl" coming soon!

Ya measly skunk! A-campin’ on my trail and lettin’ me do the work an’ then shootin’ me in the back. IN THE BACK!